Heard Sri Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioners as well as Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

2. The petitioners before this Court are the legal heirs of one Sri Surendra Singh Negi who as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, had filed this writ petition in the year 2006 against the order of his compulsory/pre-mature retirement from service. During the pendency of the writ petition Sri Surendra Singh Negi (the petitioner) had passed away and consequently vide orders of this Court his legal heirs have been substituted who are presently before this Court as petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. widow and the sons of the petitioner, respectively.

3. For sake of convenience Sri Surendra Singh Negi, now deceased, shall be referred to as the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 17.3.1970 on the post of “Draftsman” in the Public Works Department of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, on 1.7.1997 he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. While he was continuing as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, due to his ill heath he moved an application to the Chief Engineer, Garhwal Zone praying that since he has not been keeping well he is seeking voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.12.2005. This letter though, was sent a few months prior to 31.12.2005. What is significant is that the petitioner did not voluntarily retire immediately but from a date which was to operate after four months from the date of filing of this representation which is dated 30.8.2005. Be that as it may, immediately after filing of such an application, on 23.9.2005 the petitioner moved another application before the Chief Engineer, Level-1 stating that he is now withdrawing the earlier application dated 30.8.2005 and it should not be treated to be in effect and the same may be consigned to records. In effect, the petitioner has withdrawn his earlier application for voluntary retirement.

4. Consequent to the said letter of the petitioner dated 23.9.2005, a letter was sent by the senior staff officer of the department dated 23.11.2005 to the Chief Engineer, Garhwal Zone in which it was said that the matter of the petitioner regarding his voluntary retirement has been consigned to record. The said letter is annexed as Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit.

5. Strangely, vide letter dated 15.12.2005 which was sent to the petitioner, clarification was sought as to whether the family condition of the petitioner has been improved? In this letter reference has made to the earlier request of the petitioner for his voluntary retirement i.e. the application dated 30.8.2005 wherein he had sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2005. Reference of another letter which was sent by the petitioner dated 23.9.2005 has also been made where he had said that his family condition has improved and he wants to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. The said letter is also available on record and is annexed as Annexure RA-3 to the rejoinder affidavit.

6. Thereafter vide letter dated 16.12.2005 the petitioner informed the Chief Engineer, Garhwal Zone that he was mentally upset in the past and presently his family and his mental condition has improved and he had, therefore, written to the concerned authority on 23.9.2005 to withdraw his earlier application of voluntary retirement. He regards that such an application could not be addressed to the Chief Engineer, Garhwal Zone but to the higher authority, the same may be reconsidered and appropriate order may be passed. This letter has been filed by the respondents in their short counter affidavit and annexed as Annexure SCA-4. Therefore, from the records, it is clear that the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier application for voluntary retirement and the matter stands closed as far as voluntary retirement of the petitioner is concerned. No action